Agenda and minutes

No apologies were received.

At this point Members must declare whether they have an interest, whether personal or prejudicial, in any of the items on the agenda. Members must also declare if they are subject to their party group whip in relation to any items under consideration.

Councillor M Dalton declared a personal interest in that his sister in law worked as a teacher at the Peterborough High school (PHS).  It was noted that this would not be a conflict of interest in this instance.

The purpose of the meeting is to provide an opportunity for consideration of any request to call in an urgent decision in relation to expanding the age range at Kings School, if any members should decide to submit a call in request.

On 6 January 2010, the Cabinet Member for Education, Skills and University made an executive decision relating to The King’s School – proposed change of age range from 11-18 to 7-18.  In accordance with the Constitution this decision was published on 7 January 2010.  On 12 January 2010, Councillors Gilbert and Fazal submitted a request to call-in this decision on the grounds that the decision was contrary to the policy framework.

Councillors Gilbert and Fazal were not in attendance at the meeting and Councillor Dalton attended as their representative to present their reasons for the call-in.  Councillor Khan advised that he felt that it was unacceptable that the councillors who had submitted the request for call-in were not present at this meeting.

In support of the request to call-in Councillor Dalton made the following points:

·         The current proposal for expansion of The King’s School was not in the best interests of the Cathedral Choristers as the standard of education and support they would receive within the new primary section of King’s would be significantly lower than that currently enjoyed at Peterborough High School (PHS).

·         The CMDN (Cabinet Member Decision Notice) was therefore against the Council’s policy of offering the best possible education to local children.

·         There were very few responses to the consultation; while there were a small number of objections/concerns to the proposal. The lack of support was telling and one of the two responses in support of the proposal appeared to have come from the Council.

·         If the transition took place with all choristers moving in September 2011, the new PHS intake of choristers would have joined in September 2010 and would be required to move school again in July 2011.  Choristers entering their final primary year, in Year 6 would be forced to move in the year that they sat their KS2 SATS regardless of parental opinion.

·         PHS had not been approached to expand the chorister provision to educate girl choristers.  Had they been approached before the decision to go to public consultation had been made rather than afterwards the understanding was that PHS would have entered into a meaningful discussion as to how this could have been achieved.  PHS was not afforded any opportunity to do so.

·         The proposal should not be based on ease for music staff at the Cathedral; rather what is best for the children.

·         The education of primary children was fundamentally different to that of secondary.  Was it appropriate to educate 60 children in a school of nearly 1200 pupils?

·         Moreover and perhaps more importantly, how could it possibly be in the best interests of the children to educate them in classes made up of two year groups with children almost two years apart learning together.

·         The proposed class sizes of 30 were comparable with other Local Authority schools (significantly higher than at PHS); what had been overlooked was the intensive workload of the choristers and the extensive support that these children, in demanding positions required.  It was also noted that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.